#local atheist uses gods blessing against him | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

duhragonball · 4 years ago

Text

Hellsing Liveblog Ch. 68-69 (nice)

This is the “Castlevania” arc. It’s only two parts, but I want to slow down and take my time with this one.

Okay, so in the last chapter, Alucard was fighting Alexander Anderson, who used one of the nails from the True Cross to pierce his own heart, which transformed Anderson into some sort of miraculous creature made of thorny tendrils. Then he struck a heavy blow on Alucard’s head, and just sort of kept on going down his neck and chest.

And as far as we call tell, this is the most danger Alucard’s been in since the story began. Anderson lopped off his head in their first encounter, and even that didn’t stop him. Now, in this “holy monster” form, Anderson can grow back body parts just as easily as Alucard, and he seems to be able to hurt Alucard a lot more than ever before. The irony is that Alucard might have been honored to lose to Anderson, but only when he was a human foe. Now that Anderson has used the Nail of Helena to become something inhuman, Alucard feels that it diminishes their fight.

Regardless, Alucard is in serious danger, or so it seems. Even his horde of familiars are bursting into flames all around him, which I assume is a side-effect of Anderson’s attack. As this happens, Alucard appears to lose consciousness, and flashes back to his childhood.

This whole flashback seemed like a nonsequitur to me when I watched the Hellsing Ultimate OVA, but I think it makes a bit more sense this time around. As a boy in the 1440′s, Vlad Tepes was something of a religious fantatic, much like Father Anderson in 1999. He pledged to never ask God for anything, which I don’t think is theologically sound, but let’s run with it. The point here seems to be that Vlad felt it was more pious to endure hardship while keeping his faith in God.

For example, in this scene, we see Vlad being dragged away to be raped, and he grabs the cross he wears around his neck for solace. He doesn’t beg God for mercy or deliverance, but simply clings to his faith to see him through.

I’m assuming the man in shadow is Sultan Murad II of the Ottoman Empire. In 1442, Murad summoned Vlad’s father to Gallipoli, and he went there with Vlad and his brother Ruda. The Sultane then imprisoned all three of them, and eventually released Vlad’s father, but kep the boys as hostages to ensure the fahter’s loyalty. There was a period when Vlad’s father sided against the Ottomans, and he presumed his sons had been killed, but in fact they survived and eventually returned to Wallachia. So maybe Kouta Hirano is taking some creative license here, and suggesting that Murad II took out his anger on Vlad in other ways.

Eventually, Vlad became the Voivoide of Wallachia, and in this flashback we find that he considers fighting to be a form of prayer. Not for mercy, because Vlad refuses to ask for that. Instead, he seems to believe that if you just keep fighting hard enough, God will descend from the heavens. None of this made sense to me the first time around, but once you start interpreting this in the context of Vlad as a religious extremist, it starts to add up. Anderson’s fellows in the Iscariot Organization were literally blowing themselves up to help Anderson defeat Alucard, and they were happy to do it, because they saw it as a holy mission. Anderson himself was eager to use the Nail to make himself into a monster, because he craved to be a single-minded instrument of God’s will. A righteous bludgeon to smite the wicked. Vlad Tepes’ “bloodlust” seems to have been inspired by a similar zealotry, at least as Hirano sees it.

But in the end, did God descend to respond to Vlad’s “prayers”? The image of the modern Alucard is all the answer we need. Of course that didn’t happen.

I’m just cribbing from the Vlad the Impaler page on Wikipedia, but from what I gather about Vlad’s final years, he was fighting for the office of Voivoide of Wallachia against Basarab Laiotă , who had support from the Ottoman Empire. Vlad fought and lost, probably dying in battle in December 1476/Janury 1477. The story goes that his corpse was cut into pieces, and his head sent to Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II.

So Kouta Hirano depicts Vlad’s final moments with him being captured and executed. This is certainly plausible, and it gives Vlad a chance to reflect on his failure before he meets his fate. He fought and killed so many people, daring to resist the Ottomans even as he ruled a state that was basically controlled by the Ottomans, and I guess he must have known how impossible that would be, which is why he counted on God to deliver him, so long as he fought hard enough.

But in that final moment, just as the axe comes down on his neck, he still has his cross... but instead of taking solace in that, he reaches out instead for the puddle of blood in front of him. The axe comes down and shatters the cross, just as Vlad Tepes forsakes his humanity.

So maybe all of this is a way of Alucard accepting defeat. Defeated and humbled, no longer a servant of God or a leader of men, no longer even a man, he renounced his faith and became the vampire Dracula, and eventually Alucard. But now Anderson seems to have the upper hand, so maybe, after 523 years, Vlad Tepes is back where he started, facing an inevitable death.

And you know, maybe Anderson’s monster form represents the divine intervention he was waiting for back in the 15th Century. After all these centuries of battle, you might say that God finally did descend from heaven to respond to Alucard. So maybe this is a fitting swan song for the guy. He wanted to die at the hands of a human adversary, but maybe this works too, right?

But then he hears someone calling out to him, and...

Hey, it’s Seras!

So yeah, we’re back to the real world, and Anderson’s well on his way to chopping Alucard in half and burning him with holy fire or something...

And Alucard’s still out of it...

And then Seras jumps in to save his ass! Cool!

The only problem is that this was killing Alucard, and Seras is less powerful than Alucard, so she’s probably not going to be able to do a lot of good here. For that matter, this might just get both of them killed.

And this is why I think this moment is cool. When Team Four Star did their Abridged parody of Hellsing, they sort of skipped this whole “Seras jumps in” part of the fight. Instead, they did a whole thing where Alucard has a near-death experience and talks to God. Then he rejects God’s offer of forgiveness and goes on to defeat Anderson by himself. I don’t care much for that, because Seras is my favorite character, and I find the whole routine of “Well maybe I don’t need your forgiveness, God!” kind of stale and limp. Can something be stale and limp at the same time?

Like, I think I get that a lot of atheists are sore at the whole “organized religion” thing, but it seems kind of silly to write a whole bit where the premise is that God is real, but only so we can all tell him to get lost. Like, I’m a Christian, so I can’t really relate, but if I thought God didn’t exist, I wouldn’t spend all day writing angry text messages to God to remind him of how fake he is.

But mostly, I just really like Seras, and this is a cool Seras scene, and I think that deserves attention, so here we are.

The Alucard-Seras relationship is complex by design. With Integra and Alucard, there’s not much to it. She literally addresses him as “slave” at one point, and he repeatedly talks about himself like a weapon that she has to point at her target. There’s something kind of like that with Al and Seras. In one of their first missions together, he sends her to take out a bunch of ghouls just so he won’t be bothered, and it’s almost like he’s weilding her as a weapon. But he also never leans on that too hard. For one thing, there’s not a whole lot of thngs Seras can do for him that he can’t do more easily himself.

It feels a lot more like a Master/Apprentice relationship, which may not strictly be a vampire thing, because he’s teaching her how to hunt vampires and how to be a vampire at the same time. I think Seras has the same sort of devotion to her master as he does for Integra, but that’s mostly overshadowed by a more down-to-earth respect and admiration. She sees him like a superior officer and a mentor, but she also knows that he has this strange charm over her that she can’t explain or resist.

One of the things I can’t stand about he Gonzoverse Hellsing Anime is how after a while they just started having Seras say “Master...!” over and over. I get it, there’s some power in the way she says it. It means a lot of things to her. I wouldn’t be shocked to find out that “Castlevania part 2″ inspired some of that, but I don’t know what chapter of the manga was published when the anime wrapped up. But it annoyed me that they just used “Master...!” over and over again as a shorthand for Seras’s feelings. You have to do something with it. Demonstrate it, like we’re seeing here with Seras trying to remove a blessed bayonet from Alucard’s torso. She has to help him, even if it means risking her own neck, because he means so much to her, and she wouldn’t be here without him. And yeah, she’s his vampire servant, so this seems like something a loyal servant should be doing. Stickin’ together is what good waffles do.

Let me pause here to note that this marks the destruction of whatever remained of Dandyman and Rip van Winkle, the only “name” characters featured in Alucard’s menagerie of absorbed souls. Whatever Anderson is doing to Alucard, it’s destroying them, irrevocably.

So it occurred to me one day, what if Seras has to save Alucard, not out of slavish devotion or plucky heroism, or even righteous loyalty? Way back in Chapter 1, Integra explained vampires to the local authorities, and said that when you kill a vampire, you also destroy all the ghouls and servant vampires that were created by that first vampire. In other words, if Alucard were to be destroyed, Seras ought to die with him. So maybe her efforts here could be nothing more than self-preservation. I’m not wild about that idea. Maybe, after drinking Pip’s blood, Seras “graduated” from that lowly status, and she no longer depends upon Alucard in this way.

But I think the point remains either way. They’re in this together. Alucard called the two of them a family, and it wasn’t just creepy vampire talk. There’s a bond between them, and it matters to both of them. And that’s why Seras’ intervention here is what brings Alucard back from the brink. By rushing in to help him, Seras has placed herself in danger, and now they have to rescue each other.

I like this part where he puts his hand on hers as they pull out the bayonet together. It’s like the moment when Seras reached out to Alucard in Cheddar and he took her hand then. Well, that was only in the OVA, but still.

Alucard tells Anderson that he might have welcomed a death like this, maybe back when he was about to get beheaded in 1476, but now, he refuses to be defeated. 523 years ago, he was at his lowest ebb. He had nothing. Today, he has Seras.

And... yeah, he has Integra too. I don’t want to dismiss the importance of that relationship. But Integra could find a way to get by without him if she needed to. He has a responsibility to Seras, though, and Seras’s loyalty trumps whatever death-fantasies he might have on his mind.

Then Al turns into this form, which I guess is the same outfit he was wearing back in 1989, when Integra found him in the basement. Not sure if that’s supposed to mean anything, though.

Oh, and I guess there’s still a few familiars that didn’t burn up from before? This is the last time we see them though, so maybe this final attack finishes them off.

As Alucard strikes the final blow on Anderson, Integra flashes back to her father, who taught her about the vampires’ inner psyche. Arthur Hellsing suggested that vampires don’t have a whole lot to show for their immortality. They crave conflict, not for its own sake, but becuse they long for death. Not just any ol’ death, but a kind of death that they could take some solace in. We’ve already seen this in Alucard, as he seems to relish the idea of being killed by a human like Anderson, or van Helsing. If all he wanted was death, he could have let that Ottoman headsman finish the job 523 years ago. Instead, he lost everything, and he’s spent centuries with nothing to take comfort in. And that probably explains why Alucard is so happy with his service to Integra. At least she gives him a purpose, a duty, a cause to fight for.

And finally, Alucard rips out Anderson’s heart, with the Holy Nail still in it.

And he crushes it, which I guess it enough to neutralize the Nail’s effect? Well, cool enough then.

But Al takes no pleasure in this victory. He sees in Anderson a reflection of himself, back when he was a human. The fanaticism, the failure, the rejection of humanity to become a monster, and then failure again.

And then Anderson, or whats’ left of him, consoles Alucard before he dies.

#2021hellsingliveblog #hellsing #alucard #seras victoria #alexander anderson #sir integra hellsing #arthur hellsing #walter c dornez #murad ii

84 notes · View notes

noonymoon · 4 years ago

Text

JUSTICE FOR JESUS — Misconceptions & Prejudices about the Faith in the Biblical Jesus Christ.

INTRO

Jesus put it on my heart to write about one of the main factors that keep people away from Him nowadays and I feel qualified to do that since I was in exactly that peer group before Christ knocked on my door (the second time) and showered me with His Love. As some maybe have read in my first testimony, at first I had violently pushed Him away (and I was extremely rude, I remember how I sent a ten minutes audio voice message to a friend [i mean, who does that...??], and philosophized about how the God of the Bible could be the Devil Himself and that maybe it‘s a trap for the weak people who need Religion to cope in this life; looking back that was just entirely bonkers and also very wrong, and now that I know Jesus, I am ashamed that I‘ve ever thought something evil like this, but gladly He has a heart probably bigger than the Universe itself and will always forgive)

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. — Matthew 18:21-22

and among all the outrageously horrible things I‘ve done in my life, this was probably the most bad error ever. God thought that by now I sure was humble enough to be approached (you know after my Mama died, I‘ve had 2 strokes, I‘ve been in a terribly traumatic violent relationship for over 2 years, I‘ve lost my apartment and almost lost my mind as well clearing out the apartment, was homeless for several months and received multiple thousands of Euros debts in my name because of the situation that was going on in my living community and with my Ex, people who have been following this blog know what I am talking about) but I was sooooo stubborn and DUMB. and not humble at all. I‘ve thought I had all the answers because „Spirituality“ is so much better than „Religion“ and because esoteric and occult knowledge is the Truth and that I would be „enlightened“ someday when I just kept „working“ to „spiritually grow“, meditate, doing divination about „my soul“ and my „past lives“ and „my future“, and „manifest“ my life however I wanted it to be.

A month after I‘ve pushed Jesus away and blasphemed His intentions, well, I was laying on my (new apartment) floor, having the worst seizure one can imagine, my brain was flooded in blood, the pressure and pain on me was extreme, my whole body clenched, the paramedics spoke to me very alarmed and dramatically, and I could hear and understand them but I was entirely paralyzed within my body, I could not speak, I could not move, I sweated so hard that my entire clothes were soaked from only 20 minutes of laying there, then I‘ve had to vomit twice, almost drifted off to unconsciousness, was freezing cold, got transported as fast as possible to the hospital... had a 6 hour brain surgery, was in a coma for 2-3 days and when I woke up I‘ve lived through almost an entire month of hospital „terror“ (I am very sure that I‘ve had something like an almost-psychosis in the first 2 weeks because really weird things happened in my mind back then that I cannot even explain) and it was already the Covid-19 panic, so I was literally alone all day, every day until I was stabilized and was allowed to leave the hospital at the end of April.

I‘m not saying that God punished me, not at all. But what He indeed does is disciplining the ones that He has chosen to be His child, just like an actual Father has to sometimes discipline his child for the sake of proper parenting. When I was stubborn and pushed Jesus away, Satan had legitimate authority to do whatever he wanted, except that I die. We see a similar situation in the book of Job 1:6-12

After I got home, I was still in horrible shape, I could barely walk (I‘ve used a rollator and later on I‘ve used crutches), I‘ve had a bad headache pretty much all the time (I still do, not all of the time, but very often), I‘ve done my daily rehab until first week of July, and now I am on weekly rehab. People would say I‘ve had enormous „luck“ or a „guardian angel“ but I know now that it was God who protected me. He needed to make sure that I meet Jesus AND accept Him before I truly die because death without Jesus means death eternal.

And so, Jesus approached me another time and I‘ve wrestled with Him and I‘ve almost pushed Him away again but THANK GOD, to the exact same time, an old friend from TUMBLR found me on Twitter (she was @spirit-mouse back on here) and also at the same time I‘ve heard of Courtney (@powerpriestess) turning to Christ, and at first I was like „?????“ and it was a huge struggle back and forth for days and I‘ve ALMOST pushed Jesus away again but ... talking with this old friend, who also felt a pull towards Jesus, I let it happen, because she let it happen, like a few days before me, and now I am just eternally grateful that my pride, stubbornness and idiocy didn‘t get a hold of me again and that I just let it happen and it was the best decision in my ENTIRE life. I am just filled with love and eternal gratitude for God and Jesus for not giving up on me, for humbling me enough to make it happen, and I literally don‘t go more than 15 minutes of my day without thinking of them, every single day, since July. It‘s just NOT possible to be born-again and to not think of God all the time *lol* - I have never been more satisfied, happy and peaceful in my entire existence and I could literally drop dead right now and I know it would be okay! (well okay, I really want to be baptized first..)

HOWEVER, - this was a long intro - the misconceptions about the Faith in the Biblical Jesus Christ are severe (!) and since I, myself, had aaaall the evil prejudices that one can have, I want to clear them aaaall up in this post series. My prayer is that people who feel a pull towards Jesus won‘t do the same mistake that I did and that maybe I can help to clear away the stigma and confusion about the faith in Jesus and following Him.

If anyone needs help along the way, you can contact me on Instagram @ noony.newborn - I know just how confusing EVERYTHING is when you start your relationship with Christ and how utterly confusing the Bible is, and sadly, these days, you can literally not trust a SINGLE pastor because Satan has infiltrated the institutional Church around 300 A.D. and ever since then, it just got worse and worse and worse with the blasphemy and deception.

I don‘t have an exact outline but some of the things I‘d like to talk about are the things you most definitely do NOT need to know, love, follow and obey Jesus Christ: Institutional Church, a Pastor, Religion, Creeds and man-made Doctrines, the Pope, Catholic Catechism, Rules, Bible Commentaries of religious Authors, nothing of that. The literally only thing you need is a Bible, Prayer and JESUS and that‘s all that you need. Of course a congregation is a nice thing to have but trust me, you rather want to be alone with Jesus than to be at your local Sunday Service and be entirely devoid of the presence of Christ, His Holy Spirit.

I will include a handful of testimonies of real people who met Jesus, were born-again and are absolutely in Love with Him, on each of these posts. The variety of people who come to Jesus is just incredible and I cry every time when I see such testimonies because I can so much relate to the emotional atmosphere and how everyone is just so grateful. I have been crying pretty much daily since July just because His love is so overwhelming and a human can not possibly hold it inside without shaking and wanting to burst, tears are the only suitable reaction for me (and as far as I’ve seen in the testimonies, every born-again believer feels the same way, it’s beautiful beyond anything).

I pray that you are open to this series of posts and that maybe God can reach you through them, so that you, too, can be born-again and just joyful and at peace with your life forever and ever.

May Jesus bless you ♡

TESTIMONIES

Melody Alisa - From New Age to Jesus | My Testimony

Kyle - Suicidal Atheist Finds Jesus | Testimony

Ayelet - I am Jewish and I Believe in Yeshua - Jesus!

Shokit Ali - A Muslim gets saved by Jesus Christ! Powerful Testimony!

Samuel A. Perez - Gay Stripper Saved By Jesus | Christian Testimony

#Jesus Christ #jesus loves you #justice for jesus

10 notes · View notes

iphisesque · 6 years ago

Text

Sicilia Gothic

The German tourist with sandals and socks sitting next to your table at the bar refuses to eat the cannoli. It'll make him look like he's biting while giving a blowjob, he says to his friends. You laugh at his joke, until you suddenly realize the meaning of the expression "one dick and a half". You're not laughing anymore.

You're driving on the highway. The fields to your right alternate between the green of the grape leaves and the yellow of the cereals and the burnt grass. On your left is the sea. You don't know where you're headed to, where you left from, whether the sea on your left is the Ionian, the Tyrrhenian or a whole another sea. You don't know the difference anymore. You keep on driving.

The local boss just recently died under mysterious circumstances. All the local bosses seem to have just recently died under mysterious circumstances. You do not know who they are, or how they operate. All you know is that your elementary school classmate wasn't an orphan before her father got too close to the local boss. You do not talk about the local boss with your family.

The high schoolers are outside the city hall again. They're smoking something which isn't tobacco, but you're pretty sure doesn't smell like cannabis either. They're protesting against the capital, they say. They offer you a drag, explaining to you all about the theory of anarchy in Sicilian history and how to grow marijuana at home. You take a drag. You are also a high schooler.

Everybody tells you to take pride in where you come from. You agree, studying the history of your country. There is so much to take pride in, you think as you admire your region. You live in a touristic city. You walk into a tourist shop, thinking it will be filled to the brim with souvenirs unique to your city's tourist attractions. All you see is unspecified temple miniatures and The Godfather gadgets. You turn around. Don Vito Corleone glares at you from a black cotton t-shirt which reads "made in China". You walk out of the shop. You now own a Godfather t-shirt. You've never watched the movies.

Revolution is in your blood, you say, carrying yourself out proudly. Your people have a history of revolting against their terrible rulers. You think about the current political situation in Italy. You wonder why you haven't revolted yet.

Beware of the North, they tell you. It is filled with Northern League supporters, vegans and polenta. Three of your sixty-seven cousins live in the North. You're not sure if they're League supporters, vegans or polenta. You don't know which option is worse.

Sicilians are Italian, you say. We're an Italian region, you insist. You look around. Arabic and Norse architecture surrounds you. We're Italian, you say, weaker this time, as you look past the cacti and into the horizon. You can see the coasts of Tunisia clearer than you can see Reggio Calabria. You're Italian, you tell yourself. You don't know whether to trust your own words.

Nothing has been the same since the last earthquake, they say. There have been thirty-four earthquakes since you woke up this morning. You wonder if anything has ever been the same at all.

Dante invented the Italian language, your elementary school teacher tells you. You feel in your gut that this isn't true, feel Jacopo da Lentini rolling in his grave, but you internalize it. You grow up, go to high school, study the Sicilian scholars and poets. Dante invented the Italian language. You know for a fact he didn't. Dante invented the Italian language.

Arancina, hiss the palermitani. Arancino, spit the catanese in their faces. You're fighting a meaningless war. You stand your ground through linguistic and historical evidence, but deep down you know this doesn't matter. Nothing matters, in Sicily. Arancino has a point, arancina is round, you try to say. A shotgun is pointed at you.

You look up Sicily on the internet. The first result is a Gattopardo quote. The second result is a Gattopardo quote. You scroll down until the fifth result page. All you see is Gattopardo quotes. You don't know where Donnafugata is, nor what a gattopardo is supposed to be. Your eyes are filled with tears as you slowly start to accept that everything changes in order not to change. Tancredi Falconeri winks at Angelica on your computer screen.

Etna is stirring, someone says. You shrug. You remember skating in the volcanic ashes as a kid after Etna erupted. Etna has never stopped erupting. Etna is always stirring. From what, nobody knows. Nobody dares to ask.

You're a lesbian looking for other lesbians near you on Her. You live in Messina. Five thousand matches appear on screen.

Your art history book talks about Sicilian baroque, or so it seems. You open the book. The Cathedral of Noto is the first picture. You've never been to Noto. Neither have any of your friends or relatives. You're pretty sure a celebrity couple recently got married there. You could be wrong.

One of your continental friends asks you how many dominations has Sicily undergone. You smile at them. They don't know what they're in for. By the end of the evening you only have two dominations to go. You're pretty sure you counted the Savoy house twice. You wonder if it matters at all, when history is all a circle.

You ask a Catholic palermitano what they think of the 1600s plague outbreak. Saint Rosalia saved us from it, they say. God bless her. You turn to an atheist. You ask what their view of religion is. They think it's utter bullshit. You ask them what they think of the 1600s plague outbreak. Saint Rosalia saved us from it, they say. God bless her.

You hate America. Ever since you were born, you hate America. You're asked why once, by a fellow Sicilian. You only have to utter one word. Comiso. Everyone around you hates America.

There's a manifestation in the streets, they say. It's a manifestation against a reform of the school system. The antimafia is there. The antimafia is always at manifestations.

Your grandmother made a peperonata just for you. There's a parmigiana waiting for you on the kitchen table, as well as some peperoni ripieni and pasta chi saddi. You're having breakfast.

#sicily #sicilia #gothic meme #sicilian #sicilian gothic #i love this meme so much can you tell #also i had to cut out loooots of things so sorryyy #italy

80 notes · View notes

evergloffpress · 6 years ago

Text

Bottle of Blog: Wicked Amongst The Righteous

The 31st Blog Entry

Once more into the breach. I am back and backer than ever for another blog entry. So here we go.

One of my best friends is not a beloved member of the community. Not because of any fiery pro 9-11, Holocaust-denying, anti-Islamic, homophobic rhetoric but because he is a very smart guy who speaks his mind. He isn't condescending or rude about it. He does not belittle people or tries to speak over their heads and yet that few people can tolerate being around him. He was mercilessly bullied as a child. Beaten up almost every day and yet somehow has a big heart. He is also the only person I know who people had tried to kill on multiple occasions. Of course, I am biased about my friend. I know him well ,where he came from and how he came to be.

His name is Mathew.

Like all people he also has flaws but I believe he is primarily misunderstood. Those that dislike him surmise (for some reason) that his agenda is to sow discord. To demean those around him. To debase all your well-established ideologies. To contradict your faith and trust in anything you hold sacred. Still, he has no history of indulging such pariah like behavior and yet there he is. Which brings is to the one event that exemplifies a quote from Jonathan Swift the author of Gulliver’s Travels (1725)

”When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign that the dunces are all in Confederacy against him”

This is what he told me...

Year's ago he went out on a Saturday night with his friends who all belonged to a group of Born again fundamentalist Christians. He was not a true believer but kept an open mind. He never understood the idea of people who say they KNOW there is a God or those that say they KNOW there isn't a God. He would ask the believers and the atheists alike who would make the above claims the following. ” How is it that you know something that significantly smarter people than us have not been able to prove for thousands of years?” Suffice to say some people find observations such as these as grating.

While out with his friends Mathew was introduced to a girl named Tara who was told she was blessed with the gift of prophecy. The night came and went without incident. He said nothing which might be deemed controversial or did anything that someone might find inappropriate. The following week he found he could not get a hold of any of his friends. Which he found rather odd. They were not returning his calls or answering his e-mails or texts messages. He also noticed they had also disappeared from his social media pages. Then he got a call from a mutual friend named Jimmy. Who happens to be the sister of one the girls he had gone out with that one Saturday night named Maria. He informed him what had occurred.

As it turned out when Tara "the prophet" shook his hand she had a vision. She sensed great unnerving evil within him. She foresaw that he would destroy the church from within. Essentially my friend was singled out as a localized anti-Christ of sorts.

When Tara revealed what she had ”discovered” they all quickly banded against him. Those he had considered his friends all went to the pastor of the church and petitioned to have him expelled from the congregation. They had expressed their concerns about the danger he posed to the church.

Mathew was then sent message sent via text by a number he did not recognize. Later he learned it was Jimmy”s sister Maria.

The Message read: Do not try to contact anyone from the church again. Do not come to the church again. We will call the police.

My friend then called Jimmy to try and make sense of why had just happened. He quickly told him he was no longer allowed to talk to him anymore. He then heard Jimmy”s Maria yell in the background ”you do not owe him any explanations just hang up on him”. Which of course Jimmy promptly did.

For why would the ”righteous” want to associate with such a ”foul malevolence” such as he?

He never understood how his perceived companions could turn on him. He said ”there were no signs of their impending betrayal for lack of less of a less dramatic term” as he put it. But it was a betrayal. I am confident in saying that he is not the scion of Satan or at the very least demonic agent on any level. To be labeled as a something so sinister based only on the accusation of a woman who interacted with him for a few hours is a ridiculous notion at best

People who misuse the word evil when describing any moral infraction. No matter how small.

In essence, he was discriminated against because he was different. He thought differently than they did and that could not be tolerated. The true violation he committed in their eyes was not the imaginary declaration of war against their church but the sin of independent thought. Not necessarily contradictory musings. To the confederacy of dunces, it was their unsubstantiated opinion of him that had teeth not his words or actions.Though they could have should that of been his intention. They feared who he was without really knowing him at all.

The flock had judged him in unison.

There was no room for a sheep THEY dressed in wolf”s clothing.

Oliver Evergloff

May-7th-2018

Post-Script. Scene....

A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole is one of my favorite books.

2 notes · View notes

vaultsexteen · 6 years ago

Text

Pastor Lance - Fallout Manila

Male Ghoul

Level: LV. 5

Age: 108

ST: 5

PE: 6

EN: 6 (+1)

CH: 4 (-2)

IN: 5

AG: 6

LK: 6 (+1)

Traits: Good Natured, Ghoulified

Perks: Healer, Medic

Tag! Skills: Firearms, Medicine, Survival

Game Location: Mendiola Church, Pugad Aswang

Equipment: Shotgun, 12-gauge shotgun shells (x100), Pastor Lance’s coat, first aid kit, doctor’s bag, stimpack (x5), Holy Bible

Description

A ghoul nearing his 110th year, Lance is old and wizened, though his demeanor is more like a man who is maybe forty-ish. He has quite a few strands of red hair still clinging to his scalp, styled in a slick comb-over. He wears a set of pre-War glasses, and he usually sports a doctor’s coat over a polo shirt, slacks, and loafers. Despite being a rotting ghoul, he expends a lot of effort into making himself look presentable.

Pastor Lance wasn’t always a holy man. Before the war, he had been a nursing student in the University of Santo Tomas. Although his own father was a Christian pastor, he didn’t believe in any sort of religious mandate or anything like that; he viewed the predominantly Catholic culture of the Philippines as backwards and stifling, so he was a self-proclaimed atheist. In his eyes, priests preaching to their congregations about how their faith in God would carry them through hardship and suffering wasn’t enough; people needed to acknowledge that Laura’s totalitarian regime was Hell on Earth, and that no amount of praying was going to fix anything.

After the bombs fell on Manila, he tended to the city’s injured alongside his classmates and professors. As more and more people died around him, Lance’s outlook on life became bleaker and bleaker - just as he was certain that the whole of humanity was doomed to die out completely, he met a young man named Pastor Bernie. The pastor had been in a small church near Mendiola when the bombs dropped; however, he had somehow lived, even when all of his neighbors had died of radiation poisoning. Pastor Bernie took this as a sign that God was protecting him – however, Lance was skeptical, and wanted to prove to him that there was a reasonable, scientific explanation for what had happened. He ended up spending a lot of time with Bernie, and the two became fast friends. Lance’s outlook on life eventually softened, thanks to Bernie’s influence – he started to believe that if people still had a heaven to look forward to and a God who was always in their corner, then they could still move forward and rebuild.

Pastor Bernie turned into a Ghoul; eventually, Lance did, as well, and they both decided to head to the old church in Mendiola and live there. Here, Pastor Bernie preaches to the ghouls and any travelers who are willing to listen to his sermons, while Lance provides those in need with his medical services. The locals of Pugad Aswang have assumed that since Lance works so closely with Pastor Bernie, he must be a pastor, as well – despite knowing nothing about preaching, he just shrugged and accepted the title.

The PC actually first encounters him when they wash up on the docks of Tondo – he was in the area to buy some supplies, and he had volunteered to help attend to the survivors of the raider attack. After he checks up on the PC, he goes back to his home in Mendiola, where the PC can eventually recruit him.

Personality

Lance is, by nature, very grounded and skeptical. He doesn’t consider himself to be especially religious, at least not by any pre-War standard – to him, to be wholly devout is to be willingly blind. His personal view on his faith is that it’s ultimately good to believe in eternal salvation and God, as long as you’re willing to actually do good things. He dislikes the notion that people can be saved as long as they just pray to be saved; God will give mercy, but the real change starts with people.

He’s painfully awkward, often coming across as rude or insensitive when he doesn’t mean to be. This causes him a great deal of anxiety – he always ends up second-guessing his interactions with others, afraid that he might have offended anyone somehow. Oftentimes, he’ll elect to not tell anyone if something is bothering him – he doesn’t want to inconvenience anybody with his complaining. He’s much more comfortable with being the guy behind the curtain, rather than the performer on stage.

Ultimately, he wants to help people, and to make Manila a better place to live in. He’s not so ambitious that he believes that he can fix everything wrong with the city – he’s content to start in small, concrete ways, like helping out in the community. He doesn’t like using violence to solve his problems, and he will only use it as a last resort.

Recruitment

Pastor Lance can be initially spoken to in the infirmary of the Mendiola Church. If the PC has a high PE or IN, they can tell that Pastor Lance is upset about something – something that he doesn’t want to talk about. With some coaxing, he will admit that he’s been getting cabin fever from being in the church all the time, and he wants to be able to help people elsewhere. However, he’s too afraid to bring it up to Pastor Bernie – he knows that Bernie is quite content to stay where he is, and he doesn’t want to disappoint him by leaving him alone.

After learning Pastor Lance’s secret, the PC can either convince him to talk to Pastor Bernie about it, or they can offer to talk to Pastor Bernie themselves. Either way, Pastor Bernie will prove to be understanding of Pastor Lance’s frustration, and will give him his blessing to leave.

Pastor Lance will happily join a PC with positive overall Karma. Pastor Lance will refuse to join a PC with overall negative Karma, or a PC with a reputation as a Child-Killer or Slaver.

Companion Features

Pastor Lance is a skill-oriented companion, particularly in the Medicine skill. He can easily craft healing items like stimpacks, first-aid kits, and doctor’s bags, as long as the PC can give him the needed components. He will also heal the PC and any party members in need of assistance during combat as long as he has an adequate amount of supplies in his inventory, though this does make him prone into running head-first into danger; it would be highly recommended that the player give him something more reinforced than his regular labcoat.

In combat, Lance prefers using close to mid-range firearms like shotguns and pistols, though he can still do a bit of damage with a melee weapon like a knife. He’s not a particularly aggressive companion – he prefers to stay close behind the player, and he will only attack if the party is attacked first. He’s not particularly great at fighting, though he can still hold his own against low to mid-level enemies.

#fallout manila #pastor lance reano #he's here...#long post

14 notes · View notes

lamingtonladies · 7 years ago

Photo

Ur-Fascism – Umberto Eco

Printable pamphlet here

In 1942, at the age of ten, I received the First Provincial Award of Ludi Juveniles (a voluntary, compulsory competition for young Italian Fascists—that is, for every young Italian). I elaborated with rhetorical skill on the subject “Should we die for the glory of Mussolini and the immortal destiny of Italy?” My answer was positive. I was a smart boy.

I spent two of my early years among the SS, Fascists, Republicans, and partisans shooting at one another, and I learned how to dodge bullets. It was good exercise.

In April 1945, the partisans took over in Milan. Two days later they arrived in the small town where I was living at the time. It was a moment of joy. The main square was crowded with people singing and waving flags, calling in loud voices for Mimo, the partisan leader of that area. A former maresciallo of the Carabinieri, Mimo joined the supporters of General Badoglio, Mussolini’s successor, and lost a leg during one of the first clashes with Mussolini’s remaining forces. Mimo showed up on the balcony of the city hall, pale, leaning on his crutch, and with one hand tried to calm the crowd. I was waiting for his speech because my whole childhood had been marked by the great historic speeches of Mussolini, whose most significant passages we memorized in school. Silence. Mimo spoke in a hoarse voice, barely audible. He said: “Citizens, friends. After so many painful sacrifices … here we are. Glory to those who have fallen for freedom.” And that was it. He went back inside. The crowd yelled, the partisans raised their guns and fired festive volleys. We kids hurried to pick up the shells, precious items, but I had also learned that freedom of speech means freedom from rhetoric.

A few days later I saw the first American soldiers. They were African Americans. The first Yankee I met was a black man, Joseph, who introduced me to the marvels of Dick Tracy and Li’l Abner. His comic books were brightly colored and smelled good.

One of the officers (Major or Captain Muddy) was a guest in the villa of a family whose two daughters were my schoolmates. I met him in their garden where some ladies, surrounding Captain Muddy, talked in tentative French. Captain Muddy knew some French, too. My first image of American liberators was thus—after so many palefaces in black shirts—that of a cultivated black man in a yellow-green uniform saying: “Oui, merci beaucoup, Madame, moi aussi j’aime le champagne…” Unfortunately there was no champagne, but Captain Muddy gave me my first piece of Wrigley’s Spearmint and I started chewing all day long. At night I put my wad in a water glass, so it would be fresh for the next day.

In May we heard that the war was over. Peace gave me a curious sensation. I had been told that permanent warfare was the normal condition for a young Italian. In the following months I discovered that the Resistance was not only a local phenomenon but a European one. I learned new, exciting words like réseau, maquis, armée secrète, Rote Kapelle, Warsaw ghetto. I saw the first photographs of the Holocaust, thus understanding the meaning before knowing the word. I realized what we were liberated from.

In my country today there are people who are wondering if the Resistance had a real military impact on the course of the war. For my generation this question is irrelevant: we immediately understood the moral and psychological meaning of the Resistance. For us it was a point of pride to know that we Europeans did not wait passively for liberation. And for the young Americans who were paying with their blood for our restored freedom it meant something to know that behind the firing lines there were Europeans paying their own debt in advance.

In my country today there are those who are saying that the myth of the Resistance was a Communist lie. It is true that the Communists exploited the Resistance as if it were their personal property, since they played a prime role in it; but I remember partisans with kerchiefs of different colors. Sticking close to the radio, I spent my nights—the windows closed, the blackout making the small space around the set a lone luminous halo—listening to the messages sent by the Voice of London to the partisans. They were cryptic and poetic at the same time (The sun also rises, The roses will bloom) and most of them were “messaggi per la Franchi.” Somebody whispered to me that Franchi was the leader of the most powerful clandestine network in northwestern Italy, a man of legendary courage. Franchi became my hero. Franchi (whose real name was Edgardo Sogno) was a monarchist, so strongly anti-Communist that after the war he joined very right-wing groups, and was charged with collaborating in a project for a reactionary coup d’état. Who cares? Sogno still remains the dream hero of my childhood. Liberation was a common deed for people of different colors.

In my country today there are some who say that the War of Liberation was a tragic period of division, and that all we need is national reconciliation. The memory of those terrible years should be repressed, refoulée, verdrängt. But Verdrängung causes neurosis. If reconciliation means compassion and respect for all those who fought their own war in good faith, to forgive does not mean to forget. I can even admit that Eichmann sincerely believed in his mission, but I cannot say, “OK, come back and do it again.” We are here to remember what happened and solemnly say that “They” must not do it again.

But who are They?

If we still think of the totalitarian governments that ruled Europe before the Second World War we can easily say that it would be difficult for them to reappear in the same form in different historical circumstances. If Mussolini’s fascism was based upon the idea of a charismatic ruler, on corporatism, on the utopia of the Imperial Fate of Rome, on an imperialistic will to conquer new territories, on an exacerbated nationalism, on the ideal of an entire nation regimented in black shirts, on the rejection of parliamentary democracy, on anti-Semitism, then I have no difficulty in acknowledging that today the Italian Alleanza Nazionale, born from the postwar Fascist Party, MSI, and certainly a right-wing party, has by now very little to do with the old fascism. In the same vein, even though I am much concerned about the various Nazi-like movements that have arisen here and there in Europe, including Russia, I do not think that Nazism, in its original form, is about to reappear as a nationwide movement.

Nevertheless, even though political regimes can be overthrown, and ideologies can be criticized and disowned, behind a regime and its ideology there is always a way of thinking and feeling, a group of cultural habits, of obscure instincts and unfathomable drives. Is there still another ghost stalking Europe (not to speak of other parts of the world)?

Ionesco once said that “only words count and the rest is mere chattering.” Linguistic habits are frequently important symptoms of underlying feelings. Thus it is worth asking why not only the Resistance but the Second World War was generally defined throughout the world as a struggle against fascism. If you reread Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls you will discover that Robert Jordan identifies his enemies with Fascists, even when he thinks of the Spanish Falangists. And for FDR, “The victory of the American people and their allies will be a victory against fascism and the dead hand of despotism it represents.”

During World War II, the Americans who took part in the Spanish war were called “premature anti-fascists”—meaning that fighting against Hitler in the Forties was a moral duty for every good American, but fighting against Franco too early, in the Thirties, smelled sour because it was mainly done by Communists and other leftists. … Why was an expression like fascist pig used by American radicals thirty years later to refer to a cop who did not approve of their smoking habits? Why didn’t they say: Cagoulard pig, Falangist pig, Ustashe pig, Quisling pig, Nazi pig?

Mein Kampf is a manifesto of a complete political program. Nazism had a theory of racism and of the Aryan chosen people, a precise notion of degenerate art, entartete Kunst, a philosophy of the will to power and of the Ubermensch. Nazism was decidedly anti-Christian and neo-pagan, while Stalin’s Diamat (the official version of Soviet Marxism) was blatantly materialistic and atheistic. If by totalitarianism one means a regime that subordinates every act of the individual to the state and to its ideology, then both Nazism and Stalinism were true totalitarian regimes.

Italian fascism was certainly a dictatorship, but it was not totally totalitarian, not because of its mildness but rather because of the philosophical weakness of its ideology. Contrary to common opinion, fascism in Italy had no special philosophy. The article on fascism signed by Mussolini in the Treccani Encyclopedia was written or basically inspired by Giovanni Gentile, but it reflected a late-Hegelian notion of the Absolute and Ethical State which was never fully realized by Mussolini. Mussolini did not have any philosophy: he had only rhetoric. He was a militant atheist at the beginning and later signed the Convention with the Church and welcomed the bishops who blessed the Fascist pennants. In his early anticlerical years, according to a likely legend, he once asked God, in order to prove His existence, to strike him down on the spot. Later, Mussolini always cited the name of God in his speeches, and did not mind being called the Man of Providence.

Italian fascism was the first right-wing dictatorship that took over a European country, and all similar movements later found a sort of archetype in Mussolini’s regime. Italian fascism was the first to establish a military liturgy, a folklore, even a way of dressing—far more influential, with its black shirts, than Armani, Benetton, or Versace would ever be. It was only in the Thirties that fascist movements appeared, with Mosley, in Great Britain, and in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Yugoslavia, Spain, Portugal, Norway, and even in South America. It was Italian fascism that convinced many European liberal leaders that the new regime was carrying out interesting social reform, and that it was providing a mildly revolutionary alternative to the Communist threat.

Nevertheless, historical priority does not seem to me a sufficient reason to explain why the word fascism became a synecdoche, that is, a word that could be used for different totalitarian movements. This is not because fascism contained in itself, so to speak in their quintessential state, all the elements of any later form of totalitarianism. On the contrary, fascism had no quintessence. Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions. Can one conceive of a truly totalitarian movement that was able to combine monarchy with revolution, the Royal Army with Mussolini’s personal milizia, the grant of privileges to the Church with state education extolling violence, absolute state control with a free market? The Fascist Party was born boasting that it brought a revolutionary new order; but it was financed by the most conservative among the landowners who expected from it a counter-revolution. At its beginning fascism was republican. Yet it survived for twenty years proclaiming its loyalty to the royal family, while the Duce (the unchallenged Maximal Leader) was arm-in-arm with the King, to whom he also offered the title of Emperor. But when the King fired Mussolini in 1943, the party reappeared two months later, with German support, under the standard of a “social” republic, recycling its old revolutionary script, now enriched with almost Jacobin overtones.

There was only a single Nazi architecture and a single Nazi art. If the Nazi architect was Albert Speer, there was no more room for Mies van der Rohe. Similarly, under Stalin’s rule, if Lamarck was right there was no room for Darwin. In Italy there were certainly fascist architects but close to their pseudo-Coliseums were many new buildings inspired by the modern rationalism of Gropius.

There was no fascist Zhdanov setting a strictly cultural line. In Italy there were two important art awards. The Premio Cremona was controlled by a fanatical and uncultivated Fascist, Roberto Farinacci, who encouraged art as propaganda. (I can remember paintings with such titles as Listening by Radio to the Duce’s Speech or States of Mind Created by Fascism.) The Premio Bergamo was sponsored by the cultivated and reasonably tolerant Fascist Giuseppe Bottai, who protected both the concept of art for art’s sake and the many kinds of avant-garde art that had been banned as corrupt and crypto-Communist in Germany.

The national poet was D’Annunzio, a dandy who in Germany or in Russia would have been sent to the firing squad. He was appointed as the bard of the regime because of his nationalism and his cult of heroism—which were in fact abundantly mixed up with influences of French fin de siècle decadence.

Take Futurism. One might think it would have been considered an instance of entartete Kunst, along with Expressionism, Cubism, and Surrealism. But the early Italian Futurists were nationalist; they favored Italian participation in the First World War for aesthetic reasons; they celebrated speed, violence, and risk, all of which somehow seemed to connect with the fascist cult of youth. While fascism identified itself with the Roman Empire and rediscovered rural traditions, Marinetti (who proclaimed that a car was more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace, and wanted to kill even the moonlight) was nevertheless appointed as a member of the Italian Academy, which treated moonlight with great respect.

Many of the future partisans and of the future intellectuals of the Communist Party were educated by the GUF, the fascist university students’ association, which was supposed to be the cradle of the new fascist culture. These clubs became a sort of intellectual melting pot where new ideas circulated without any real ideological control. It was not that the men of the party were tolerant of radical thinking, but few of them had the intellectual equipment to control it.

During those twenty years, the poetry of Montale and other writers associated with the group called the Ermetici was a reaction to the bombastic style of the regime, and these poets were allowed to develop their literary protest from within what was seen as their ivory tower. The mood of the Ermetici poets was exactly the reverse of the fascist cult of optimism and heroism. The regime tolerated their blatant, even though socially imperceptible, dissent because the Fascists simply did not pay attention to such arcane language.

All this does not mean that Italian fascism was tolerant. Gramsci was put in prison until his death; the opposition leaders Giacomo Matteotti and the brothers Rosselli were assassinated; the free press was abolished, the labor unions were dismantled, and political dissenters were confined on remote islands. Legislative power became a mere fiction and the executive power (which controlled the judiciary as well as the mass media) directly issued new laws, among them laws calling for preservation of the race (the formal Italian gesture of support for what became the Holocaust).

The contradictory picture I describe was not the result of tolerance but of political and ideological discombobulation. But it was a rigid discombobulation, a structured confusion. Fascism was philosophically out of joint, but emotionally it was firmly fastened to some archetypal foundations.

So we come to my second point. There was only one Nazism. We cannot label Franco’s hyper-Catholic Falangism as Nazism, since Nazism is fundamentally pagan, polytheistic, and anti-Christian. But the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change. The notion of fascism is not unlike Wittgenstein’s notion of a game. A game can be either competitive or not, it can require some special skill or none, it can or cannot involve money. Games are different activities that display only some “family resemblance,” as Wittgenstein put it. Consider the following sequence:

1 2 3 4 abc bcd cde def

Suppose there is a series of political groups in which group one is characterized by the features abc, group two by the features bcd, and so on. Group two is similar to group one since they have two features in common; for the same reasons three is similar to two and four is similar to three. Notice that three is also similar to one (they have in common the feature c). The most curious case is presented by four, obviously similar to three and two, but with no feature in common with one. However, owing to the uninterrupted series of decreasing similarities between one and four, there remains, by a sort of illusory transitivity, a family resemblance between four and one.

Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.

But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them indulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages—in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia. This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth. As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message. One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right, in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism. If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the US, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such a “final solution” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.

In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as “Long Live Death!”). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People. Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples”—“maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

On the morning of July 27, 1943, I was told that, according to radio reports, fascism had collapsed and Mussolini was under arrest. When my mother sent me out to buy the newspaper, I saw that the papers at the nearest newsstand had different titles. Moreover, after seeing the headlines, I realized that each newspaper said different things. I bought one of them, blindly, and read a message on the first page signed by five or six political parties—among them the Democrazia Cristiana, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Partito d’Azione, and the Liberal Party.

Until then, I had believed that there was a single party in every country and that in Italy it was the Partito Nazionale Fascista. Now I was discovering that in my country several parties could exist at the same time. Since I was a clever boy, I immediately realized that so many parties could not have been born overnight, and they must have existed for some time as clandestine organizations.

The message on the front celebrated the end of the dictatorship and the return of freedom: freedom of speech, of press, of political association. These words, “freedom,” “dictatorship,” “liberty,”—I now read them for the first time in my life. I was reborn as a free Western man by virtue of these new words.

We must keep alert, so that the sense of these words will not be forgotten again. Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier, for us, if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares.” Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances—every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt’s words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: “I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land.” Freedom and liberation are an unending task.

Let me finish with a poem by Franco Fortini:

Sulla spalletta del ponte Le teste degli impiccati Nell’acqua della fonte La bava degli impiccati.

Sul lastrico del mercato Le unghie dei fucilati Sull’erba secca del prato I denti dei fucilati.

Mordere l’aria mordere i sassi La nostra carne non è più d’uomini Mordere l’aria mordere i sassi Il nostro cuore non è più d’uomini.

Ma noi s’è letto negli occhi dei morti E sulla terra faremo libertà Ma l’hanno stretta i pugni dei morti La giustizia che si farà.

On the cobbles in the market- places The fingernails of those lined up and shot On the dry grass in the open spaces The broken teeth of those lined up and shot.

Biting the air, biting the stones Our flesh is no longer human Biting the air, biting the stones Our hearts are no longer human.

But we have read into the eyes of the dead And shall bring freedom on the earth But clenched tight in the fists of the dead Lies the justice to be served.) —poem translated by Stephen Sartarelli

#pamphlet #this is the first one i ever made so there are some sig errors in the setting #but w/e #umberto eco #ur fascism #ur-fascism #fascism

2 notes · View notes

pope-francis-quotes · 5 years ago

Text

5th June >> (@ZenitEnglish By Virginia Forrester) #Pope Francis #PopeFrancis’ Address at General Audience: (Full Text). Reflects on Apostolic Journey to Romania

This morning’s General Audience was held at 9:10 in St. Peter’s Square, where the Holy Father Francis met with groups of pilgrims and faithful from Italy and from all over the world.

In his address in Italian, the Pope focused his meditation on his Apostolic Journey to Romania, which just ended (Biblical passage: From the Letter to the Hebrews 12:1-2a.).

After summarizing his catechesis in several languages, the Holy Father expressed special greetings to groups of faithful present.

The General Audience ended with the singing of the Pater Noster and the Apostolic Blessing.

* * *

The Holy Father’s Catechesis

Dear Brothers and Sisters, good morning!

Last weekend I undertook an Apostolic Journey to Romania, invited by the President and the Lady Prime Minister. I renew to them my gratitude, which I extend to the other Civil and Ecclesiastical Authorities, and to all those that collaborated in the realization of this visit. I especially thank God, who permitted the Successor of Peter to return to that country, 20 years after the visit of Saint John Paul II.

In sum, as the Journey’s motto stated, I exhorted to “walk together.” And my joy was to be able to do so, not from afar, or from on high, but myself walking among the Romanian people, as a pilgrim in their land. The different meetings made evident the value and need to walk together, be it with Christians, on the plane of faith and charity, be it with citizens, on the plane of civil commitment.

As Christians, we have the grace of living a stage of fraternal relations between the different Churches. In Romania, the majority of the faithful belong to the Orthodox Church, led at present by Patriarch Daniel, to whom goes my fraternal and grateful thought. The Catholic community, be it “Greek” or “Latin” is alive and active. Christian union, although incomplete, is based on the one Baptism and sealed by the blood and suffering endured together in the dark times of persecution, in particular in the last century under the atheist regime. There is as well another Lutheran community, which also professes faith in Jesus Christ, and is in good relations with the Orthodox and the Catholics.

With the Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church, we had a very cordial meeting, in which I confirmed the will of the Catholic Church to walk together in reconciled memory and toward a fuller unity, which in fact the Romanian people invoked prophetically during Saint John Paul II’s visit. This important ecumenical dimension of the trip culminated in the solemn Prayer of the Our Father, inside the new and imposing Orthodox Cathedral of Bucharest. This was a moment of intense symbolic value because the Our Father is the Christian prayer par excellence, common patrimony of all the baptized. No one can say “My Father” and “Our Father,” no: “Our Father <is> the common patrimony of all the baptized. We manifested that unity doesn’t remove the legitimate diversities. May the Holy Spirit be able to lead us to live ever more as children of God and brothers among ourselves.

As Catholic Community, we celebrated three Eucharistic Liturgies. The first in the Cathedral of Bucharest on May 31, feast of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary, icon of the Church on the way in faith and in charity; the second Eucharist was held in the Sumuleu Ciuc Shrine, the object of very many pilgrims. There, the Holy Mother of God brings together the faithful people in the variety of languages, of cultures and of traditions. And the third celebration was the Divine Liturgy at Blaj, center of the Greek-Catholic Church in Romania, with the Beatification of the seven Greek-Catholic Bishop-Martyrs, witnesses of the freedom and mercy that stem from the Gospel. One of these new Blesseds, Monsignor Iuliu Hossu, wrote during his imprisonment: “God has sent us into this darkness of suffering to forgive and to pray for the conversion of all.” Thinking of the tremendous tortures to which they were subjected, these words are a testimony of mercy.

Particularly intense and festive was the meeting with young people and families, held at Iasi, ancient city and important cultural center, crossroads between West and East. A place that invites to open ways on which to walk together, in the richness of diversity, in a freedom that doesn’t sever the roots but draws on them creatively. This meeting also had a Marian character and ended with the entrustment of young people and families to the Holy Mother of God.

The last stage of the trip was the visit to the Rom community of Blaj. The Rom are very numerous in that city; therefore, I wished to greet them and renew the appeal against all discriminations and for respect of persons of any ethnic group, language, and religion.

Dear brothers and sisters, we thank God for this Apostolic Journey and we ask Him, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, that it may bear abundant fruits for Romania and for the Church in that land.

[Original text: Italian] [ZENIT’s translation by Virginia M. Forrester]

In Italian

Observed next Saturday, June 8, is the fifth anniversary of the meeting, here in the Vatican, of the Presidents of Israel and of Palestine with me and with Patriarch Bartholomew. At 1:00 pm we are invited to dedicate “a minute” of prayer “for peace,” for believers; of reflection, for those that don’t believe: all together for a more fraternal world. Thanks to International Catholic Action that is promoting this initiative.

A warm welcome goes to the Italian-speaking pilgrims.

I’m happy to receive the Priests of the Diocese of Padua; the members of the Don Calabria Work; and the Handmaids of Mary, Ministers of the Infirm.

I greet the Parishes, especially that of Irsina; the faithful of the Fortore pastoral zone, of the Diocese of Benevento; the married couples accompanied by the Bishop, Monsignor Andrea Turazzi; the delegation of the Pilgrimage on foot from Macerata to Loreto, which will be held next Saturday; the participants in the tournament of Parishes: the Saint John Paul II Cup; the Local Police Professional Association of Italy; and the school Institutes, in particular that of Serracapriola.

A particular thought goes to young people, the elderly, the sick and newlyweds. Next Sunday we will celebrate the Solemnity of Pentecost. May the Lord find all ready to receive the abundant effusion of the Holy Spirit. May the grace of His gifts infuse in you a new vitality to faith, reinvigorate hope and give operative strength to charity.

[Original text: Italian] [ZENIT’s translation by Virginia M. Forrester]

5th JUNE 2019 15:39GENERAL AUDIENCE

0 notes

dedzidilives · 7 years ago

Text

JULY 6, 2017 / On Clickbait, Compliments and Christian Women

Their titles are indignant. Their content is relevant… but overall, only temporarily satisfying.

You should know what I’m talking about if you’ve spent any time on Facebook or consuming popular media in the past year. These posts shared daily on my newsfeed are known more commonly today as clickbait. Clickbait can be as obvious as “You Won’t Believe What Angelina Jolie Looks Like Now”, but as subtle as one that I passed in my newsfeed today. Combining Christian themes and current issues, this blog post and many like it garner likes and shares from Christian women (and men, I’m sure) because they speak directly to “your heart” and “your issue”.

I’ve graciously moved away from these blog posts and websites to others in the last few years. But I’ve learned something - they function so much like a compliment does. Almost exactly like when someone compliments your shirt or your shoes, they validate you where you’re at - and in this situation, often turning your pain into “righteous indignation” as one, if not the only, solution. What a relief! You don’t have to change? Hmph. Well, as I’ve learned, compliments and validation in large, unchallenged quantities leave me swirling in my constructed idea of truth rather than the truth itself.

For Christian women in particular, I found these Christian-lite articles to emphasize connecting you to Christ through your subjectivity rather than through what I’ve come to frame many of my everyday “strugz”, the three ordinary means of grace: fellowship, bible study, and prayer. Here are three contrasts that only in part explain why this matters:

FELLOWSHIP (and discipling) OVER FAUX COMMUNITY: I’m currently reading “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt, in which this staunchly atheist moral psychologist depicts the Western world as one dominated by a culture of individualism (among other things). Along I don’t agree with where he falls religiously, I do agree with his observation - in our society, even though we enjoy spending time with people, we also have been conditioned to exalt yourself, your differences and, in that, gratify yourself. So when I see content, that contains themes that correspond to a 20-something African-American Christian female who struggles with fitting into a Reformed theological world that is largely Caucasian and male dominated, I am supposed to be a more satisfied (and maybe slightly more disgruntled) 20-something African-American Christian female.

However, solely reading these posts can leave you in a faux community. People from all over the West with common struggles become sort-of, kind-of connected and sort-of, kind-of egged on to continue talking about posting about their struggles with people who could be miles and miles away. But behind the computer screen is someone who, as I am, is not only writing but editing. Posts with a clickbait descriptor often edit away what’s true and leave you with something that is loosely relevant to enough people. Their goal is not necessarily to leave a real impression but to get a marginal increase in their websites impression count.

I’ve been blessed with places where I’ve been able to have conversations about things like these, and most importantly, about Christ through fellowship - my local church. It’s in places like these where you can’t edit away what’s true that you’ll be (hopefully) able to drop the “sort-of, kind-of” phrases and just be connected to other Christians. In contrast to the dotted lines of connection that clickbait creates, true fellowship, in short, creates solid lines of relationships that truly challenge you. In fellowship, you no longer remain a “unicorn”, but become a useful (and humble) part of your local church and a person who boasts not in themselves but in the Lord (on which I’ll probably write more later). Read Galatians 6 to see how Paul instructed that church to care for one another.

STUDYING THE WORD OF GOD OVER STUDYING YOUR EXPERIENCES: It can be easy to settle. To let your pastor unpack the Word on Sundays while, during the week, you just rely about you remember about Christ to “fall in love with Him”. But, behavior and language like this is frankly worldly and vague. In phrases like that, we see knowing Christ analogized to a secular relationship. May we never treat our Savior with such disrespect! May we not frame our sacred communion with Christ through what often is a series of experiences that increase our devotion to someone. May we not use out of context ideologies that do not apply to Him.

Reliance on experiences may be helpful in some cases, but I’d say... not in this one. It doesn’t reflect what the Lord himself told us to do to know Him and to love Him in John 14:21 and again in John 15:7-10 (emphasis mine):

He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by the Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.

If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified in this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandment and abide in His love.

This is again emphasized by the apostle John in the second chapter of his first epistle to a group of believers whose faith was being tested by false teachers (emphasis mine here, too):

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God have truly been perfected.

We will know Him only if we know what He said. We will love Him only if we fully keep what He said.

To my sisters in Christ who are reading this, I encourage you to bury your heads in the Word of God, to trust in it to find Christ who is the Word of God who “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:18). In Him should we first seek and find the most comfort when dealing with our discontentment and our sin, as it was He who conquered sin, death, and the devil, not that popular Christian blogger, her experiences or ours. Read also John 1; 1 John 2:1-2 and find comfort in Christ as our example and advocate, and most importantly, our Savior.

PRAYING TO GOD OVER RUMINATING TO YOURSELF: Thirdly, I’ve found that reading posts like this cause me to ruminate in my problems rather than seek the incomparable wisdom of God in prayer. As a chronic overthinker, that is deadly for me. To put that in context, I’ve needed a new backpack for a while now, but I’ve been searching for a for MONTHS… and I probably won’t get one anytime soon. So, when it comes to spiritual things, it is dangerous for me, and I’m sure for others, to think constantly about how I can be content in my circumstances, how I can really see God in all of this without running to God himself with my worries and concerns.

It has become such a blessing to be named Dedzidi. The meaning of my name is a constant reminder of what being a Christian means God is able to be for us:

[Cast] all your anxieties on [God], because He cares for you.

1 Peter 5:7 holds such a great implication of what God is and does on the other side of our salvation. Taking this in context, we see the character of God shine through - He cares. And not only that, He cares for his people. Only after we recognize our sin and rebellion against a holy and perfect God and that believed that in His grace, He has provided a Savior, His Son, Jesus Christ, who has through His death and resurrection given us the one way to be reconciled to God, can we see God as full of care, as our Father. May we not forget the gravity of that.

Instead of trusting in ourselves, may we bring our anxieties to the Lord in prayer. Read Hebrews 10-12 to become even more thankful for the person and work of Jesus Christ, who through his death and resurrection, also fulfilled the law, established a new covenant and gave us the great privilege to “draw near”.

These thoughts and these questions are not exhaustive in the least, and are something I’m still growing in as I learn to navigate the blogosphere, and I know and have seen true relationships formed in the spaces that some posts create. But I write this to share with you a piece of the lens through which I look.

So, think - do the articles you’ve been reading encourage you in these three things? Do they increase the intensity of your feelings or the desire for your sanctification? Do they make you full of yourself or full of humility as you are reminded of the gospel full of grace?

Here’s one last one - are you truly allowing God to create such a lens, a filter in you or are you still letting anything and everything from this world seep through?

#words in July

1 note · View note

leftpress · 8 years ago

Text

Ur-Fascism

Umberto Eco | JUNE 22, 1995 Submitted by @sarahmascarah

I spent two of my early years among the SS, Fascists, Republicans, and partisans shooting at one another, and I learned how to dodge bullets. It was good exercise.

Get your Latest News From The Leftist Front on LeftPress.tk → Help Us Gather News (Click for Details) ←

But who are They?

1 2 3 4abc bcd cde def

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them indulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages—in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right, in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.

If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the US, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such a “final solution” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as “Long Live Death!”). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples”—“maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

Let me finish with a poem by Franco Fortini:

Sulla spalletta del ponte Le teste degli impiccati Nell’acqua della fonte La bava degli impiccati.

Sul lastrico del mercato Le unghie dei fucilati Sull’erba secca del prato I denti dei fucilati.

Mordere l’aria mordere i sassi La nostra carne non è più d’uomini Mordere l’aria mordere i sassi Il nostro cuore non è più d’uomini.

Ma noi s’è letto negli occhi dei morti E sulla terra faremo libertà Ma l’hanno stretta i pugni dei morti La giustizia che si farà.

On the cobbles in the market- places The fingernails of those lined up and shot On the dry grass in the open spaces The broken teeth of those lined up and shot.

Biting the air, biting the stones Our flesh is no longer human Biting the air, biting the stones Our hearts are no longer human.

But we have read into the eyes of the dead And shall bring freedom on the earth But clenched tight in the fists of the dead Lies the justice to be served.) —poem translated by Stephen Sartarelli

Related Stories on LeftPress:

► RESPONDING TO FASCIST ORGANIZING

► SHOCK DOCTRINE OF THE LEFT: A STRATEGY FOR BUILDING SOCIALIST COUNTERPOWER

► TEENS REPORT ONSLAUGHT OF BULLYING DURING DIVISIVE ELECTION

110 notes · View notes

hackerr00t · 8 years ago

Text

Ur-Fascism/Eternal Fascism by Umberto Eco

WRITTEN ON THE “NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS” ON JUNE 22, 1995

--Op commentary: Please if you are going to read just one thing today read this essay on how to recognize fascism around us in any historical time. Thank you.--

I spent two of my early years among the SS, Fascists, Republicans, and partisans shooting at one another, and I learned how to dodge bullets. It was good exercise.

But who are They?

1 2 3 4

abc bcd cde def

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

Let me finish with a poem by Franco Fortini:

Sulla spalletta del ponte Le teste degli impiccati Nell’acqua della fonte La bava degli impiccati.

Sul lastrico del mercato Le unghie dei fucilati Sull’erba secca del prato I denti dei fucilati.

Mordere l’aria mordere i sassi La nostra carne non è più d’uomini Mordere l’aria mordere i sassi Il nostro cuore non è più d’uomini.

Ma noi s’è letto negli occhi dei morti E sulla terra faremo libertà Ma l’hanno stretta i pugni dei morti La giustizia che si farà.

* * *

(On the bridge’s parapet The heads of the hanged In the flowing rivulet The spittle of the hanged.

On the cobbles in the market- places The fingernails of those lined up and shot On the dry grass in the open spaces The broken teeth of those lined up and shot.

Biting the air, biting the stones Our flesh is no longer human Biting the air, biting the stones Our hearts are no longer human.

But we have read into the eyes of the dead And shall bring freedom on the earth But clenched tight in the fists of the dead Lies the justice to be served.) —poem translated by Stephen Sartarelli

#fascism #anti-trump #RESISTENCE #umberto eco #ur-fascism #literature #essay #ur-fascismo #eterbal fascism #fascismo eterno #my sj #my politics #usa #politics #long post

3 notes · View notes

nebris · 4 years ago

Text

Ur-Fascism

Umberto Eco June 22, 1995 Issue

I spent two of my early years among the SS, Fascists, Republicans, and partisans shooting at one another, and I learned how to dodge bullets. It was good exercise.

But who are They?

1 2 3 4

abc bcd cde def

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

Let me finish with a poem by Franco Fortini:

Sulla spalletta del ponte Le teste degli impiccati Nell’acqua della fonte La bava degli impiccati.

Sul lastrico del mercato Le unghie dei fucilati Sull’erba secca del prato I denti dei fucilati.

Mordere l’aria mordere i sassi La nostra carne non è più d’uomini Mordere l’aria mordere i sassi Il nostro cuore non è più d’uomini.

Ma noi s’è letto negli occhi dei morti E sulla terra faremo libertà Ma l’hanno stretta i pugni dei morti La giustizia che si farà.

On the cobbles in the market- places The fingernails of those lined up and shot On the dry grass in the open spaces The broken teeth of those lined up and shot.

Biting the air, biting the stones Our flesh is no longer human Biting the air, biting the stones Our hearts are no longer human.

But we have read into the eyes of the dead And shall bring freedom on the earth But clenched tight in the fists of the dead Lies the justice to be served.) —poem translated by Stephen Sartarelli

#fascism #Umberto Eco

0 notes

pamphletstoinspire · 7 years ago

Photo

Catholic Physics - Reflections of a Catholic Scientist - Part 76

Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles?

Story with images:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/catholic-physics-reflections-scientist-part-76-harold-baines/?published=t

The Israelites Gathering Manna (Clerck) from Wikimedia Commons (Caption for image)

“Miracles always relate to the faith. That is why a belief in miracles is not a vacation from reason, a little holiday from the tedious demands of rational responsibility. Not only is it reasonable to believe that miracles can and do happen, it is unreasonable to think they cannot and do not occur.” ― Ralph M. McInerny, Miracles — a Catholic View

"The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern into which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern." -- C.S. Lewis, Miracles

INTRODUCTION

Some 22 years ago when I was being catechized, preparing to enter into the Church, I was much troubled by the Eucharistic phenomenon, transubstantiation. As a physicist, I could not understand how the wafer could become the flesh of Christ and the wine His Sacred Blood. The wise old priest who was instructing me asked: “Do you believe in the miracle of Christ’s Resurrection?” I answered, “Yes, of course — that’s why I’m going to become a Catholic.” He then said, “Well, if you believe in one miracle, why not a second, or more?” And that answer made a lot of sense to me.

So the first property of a miracle is that it is related to faith in God, as an act or sign from God. Miracles are presumed to be rare events, supernatural — that is, not wrought by natural law. Certainly not all rare events are miracles. Winning the lottery is a rare event. But if you needed that win to pay for a cancer medication, then you might consider it a miracle. We’ll see below what evidence the Church needs to certify a rare event — a medical cure or other phenomenon — as a miracle.

And finally, I'll try to show, in both a personal and broader context, that science does not create roadblocks to a belief in miracles -- if we assume God exists, is omniscient and omnipotent, then he can, as C.S. Lewis suggests, feed a new event into the pattern of natural law, bring down manna from heaven to feed the Israelites.

HOW THE CHURCH JUDGES MIRACLES

I'll not discuss specific miracles ; the various types and categories are well covered on the internet (see the given links):

Old Testament

New Testament -- Jesus

New Testament -- Apostles

Historical -- Marian Apparitions

Historical -- Eucharistic Miracles

Historical -- Healing Miracles

The Catholic Church has to be very cautious in endorsing miracles. Should a Church approved miracle turn out to be due to natural, rather than supernatural causes, or -- worse yet -- to be the product of fakery, the Church will wind up egg on her face. The supposed miracle will be cited by non-believers as additional evidence against the truth of the Church's theological and moral stance.

A general protocol for approval of "Private Revelations" is given by the Sacred Congregation for Propagation of the Doctrine of the Faith (SCPDF). The first stage is approval by the bishop of the local diocese; he may seek the aid of a committee of experts. Further approval is given by the SCPDF, either using a permanent commission, as in the case of healing miracles required for canonization, or an ad hoc commission.

These agencies can return three verdicts on whether the event is truly miraculous, not to be explained by natural laws: yes, no, can't decide (translating from the Latin). Whatever this judgment, and the final judgment of the SCPDF, might be, it should be emphasized that other than those miracles which are part of Doctrine or Dogma (e.g. the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary), the faithful are not required to believe in miracles, although they are encouraged to do so.

Different Types of Miracles

Stature of San Juan Diego, who saw Our Lady of Guadaloupe - Marian Apparitions (paraphrased from the linked source) - [Caption for linked image]

1) There must be moral certainty, or at least great probability, that something miraculous has occurred, something that cannot be explained by natural causes, or by deliberate fakery.

2) The person or persons who claim to have had the private revelation must be mentally sound, honest, sincere, of upright conduct, and obedient to ecclesiastical authority.

3) The content of the revelation or message must be theologically acceptable, morally sound and free of error.

4) The apparition must yield positive and continuing spiritual assets: for example, prayer, conversion, increase of charity.

Not all Marian apparitions have been approved. The most noteworthy example is that of Medjugorje.

Eucharistic Miracles

Eucharistic miracles occur when the host, previously consecrated, either issues blood or is transformed into human tissue. One of the oldest (8th Century A.D.) occurred at Lanciano Italy. The host was transformed into cardiac tissue, and subjected in 1970-71 and 1981 to histological analyses. The results corresponded in blood type (AB) to that found for the Shroud of Turin. Remarkably, the tissue remained uncorrupted for the 1100 years after the miracle occurred.

The most recent in Legnicka, Poland occurred in 2013 when a host was dropped and then found to bleed. Examination by pathologists confirmed that it was most likely cardiac tissue.

These results are hotly contested by atheists who claim that they are either the result of fraud or that the internet reports of their occurrence are made up (including several in Buenos Aires when Pope Francis, then Archbishop Bergoglio, supposedly certified the miracle.) Given the reluctance of Church officials to certify miracles which might be revealed as fraudulent or natural (see the section on Healing Miracles below), it seems unlikely that this objection is valid. Whether all internet reports are totally accurate is another question.

Healing Miracles for Canonization

The process of canonization requires that the candidate for sainthood be responsible for at least two miracles. The miracles must be the result of prayer to the saint - to - be and only to him or her. Moreover, the miracle must involve a disease or injury that medical authorities say is totally without hope of cure. A committee of doctors (not all of whom need be Catholic) must examine the medical circumstances of the cure and certify that it is indeed miraculous.

A good example is that given by the canonization of Pope St. John Paul II. Three months after his death a French nun suffering from Parkinson's disease (the same affliction that Pope St. John Paul II suffered from) prayed to him and woke up one morning in perfect health, even though she had been unable to move her legs before. The second cure, after his beatification, was that of a Costa Rican woman who had been told by her doctors that her brain aneurysm gave her only a month to live.

We emphasize that the evaluation process for such miracles and for other miracles at shrines, such as Lourdes, is extremely rigorous. A group of doctors have to certify that there has been no previous medical treatment that could give a cure -- that is, 0 % chance according to conservative diagnosis for a cure. There is no way to argue that fraud is involved in these cases or that something outside of "natural law" has not occurred.

CAN A SCIENTIST BELIEVE IN MIRACLES?

Very briefly, the answer to that question is YES! Let me explain in detail. In the first place, it should be evident from the material above that the Church applies rigorous and scrupulous standards in evaluating miracles. Mother Church does not want to be embarrassed when fraud or natural causes are proven to be the cause of what are supposed to be miraculous events.

Secondly, if I were to answer no, I would have to assume that science explains everything, that "Naturalism" (or materialism or scientism) is the only explanation for all things and processes; in other words, I would accept that the so called laws of nature are just that, prescriptive, rather than descriptive attempts to give a mathematical picture of some aspects of our world. I would have to assume there is no "veiled reality" in quantum mechanics, and that a physicist who told me "I understand quantum mechanics" is neither a liar nor a fool.

If I believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient, I also would have to wonder why God could not, as C.S. Lewis proposed, feed new events into nature to create what seems to us to be a miracle. The so-called laws of nature, to repeat, are descriptive not prescriptive. God can't make 2 + 2 = 5, but he can curve space so that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle do not add up to 180 degrees.

Accordingly, my faith in miracles does not contradict my belief that science is a wonderful tool to understand the world, to help us appreciate the beauty described in Psalm 19A:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Indeed, to take this a step further, to realize that the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in science is itself a sort of miracle,

From a series of articles written by: Bob Kurland - a Catholic Scientist

#catholic physics

0 notes

nycreligion · 7 years ago

Text

Down goes Jesus, up goes Xi. Twitter from lvv.com

Eight is perfect harmony in Chinese tradition. If you ascend to live on the 8th Floor, you are especially blessed. So, learn these eight truths to rise above the ordinary crowd of news-followers.

1 The age of managerial imperialism in China.

We listened to President Xi Jinping’s entire speech to the Communist Party annual gathering. It was like listening to a managerial report. His game plan is managerial competence in aggressive suppression of domestic opponents and the attainment of international supremacy. He picked his internal circle for their managerial abilities and loyalty, not for their charisma. Don’t mistake this group as a bunch of ideologues. They use ideology to manage their people. But they could come to believe their own rhetoric resulting in an era of increasingly harsh treatment of religion..

Chinese Communist managers must adapt–“Sinicize”–religion to support the Chinese socialist society. At a recent meeting, the heads of the officially approved religious associations all vowed to fight “desinicization” in their religions. This means to fight the infiltration of any foreign ideas into Chinese religion.

2 The Xi personality cult is growing. He is being hailed as the “core leader,” which means that he can over-rule other leaders in the inner circle. Xi Jinping thought was recently enshrined along with Mao Zedong’s Thought in the Communist Party constitution. Mao was the founding leader of the People’s Republic of China.

Mao took on a god-like appearance in Chinese propaganda. The “Great Helmsman,” as he was called, thought that Chinese people were like sacks of potatoes who needed someone godlike to inspire them to action. In the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution between 1966 and 1976, the Red Guards made Mao and Mao Thought the absolute touchstone of hope and judgment. Although that terrible episode soured Xi’s generation on such outlandish absolutist leaders, there is a constant temptation of dictatorial Chinese leaders to fall into the arms of popular adulation as a means of securing power. Mao is still counted as a “mystical presence” by many ordinary people. Taxi cab drivers sport Mao portraits hanging from their mirrors and tales of how his presence saved them in car wrecks. There are even Mao Temples and gargantuan icons scattered around the countryside areas of special significance in Mao’s biography.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Although in the past Xi has denounced “personality cults” around Mao, the wave of tens of thousands of public portraits shouting his hosannas and other activities like teaching every school child about The Leader’s thought seems like a massive revival of a state-promoted religious cult. His and associates’ speeches have shown an inclination to the miraculous, at least in this-worldly terms: in Hong Kong he predicted “new miracles” were possible and in Pakistan, his vice premier also called for the creation of “new miracles.” Worldly rhetoric, surely; verging on the divine, maybe some local officials will start to promote this trend.

Bob Fu, president of China Aid, which documents religious policy in China, is alarmed, He says that the Communist Party is seeking to “exert total control over all areas of life” of Chinese citizens. The official ideology of this total control will include an eradication of alternatives to atheism.

3 Big drive in some areas to replace Jesus with Xi as savior of the Chinese people. (see #4)

4 Blame for poverty is being put on religion, particularly Christianity, as an “opium of the people.”

Communists claim religion perpetuates poverty while Xi’s Thought will end it.

A Chinese social media account acclaimed Yugan’s Huangjinbu township Party cadres for their house-to-house visits with Christians to melt “the hard ice in their hearts” so that they were “transformed them from believing in religion to believing in the party.” The township is located in an area of the poor southeastern province of Jiangxi that is about ten percent or more Christian. After some warnings that their share of the poverty relief fund would be cut, they “voluntarily” got rid of their Bible verses and portraits of Jesus or of the Cross and put up Leader Xi’s portraits in their living rooms.

Qi Yan, the local Communist leader, told the South China Morning Post, “Many poor households have plunged into poverty because of illness in the family. Some resorted to believing in Jesus to cure their illnesses. But we tried to tell them that getting ill is a physical thing and that the people who can really help them are the Communist Party and General Secretary [of the Communist Party] Xi.” Qi added, “Many rural people are ignorant. They think God is their savior —After our cadres’ work, they’ll realize their mistakes and think: we should no longer rely on Jesus, but on the party for help.”

At the next Chinese New Year’s celebrations, party leaders hope that no more gospel couplets will be hung on the front doors. They plan on putting Leader Xi everywhere.

5 Christianity is the religious movement most feared by the Chinese government.

“Appeal to a Higher Power” means Communism is an ersatz religion.

Dictionary definition of ersatz: being a usually artificial and inferior substitute or imitation, i.e. ersatz turf or ersatz intellectuals. First used in 1871. Mirriam-Webster Dictionary

6 Communist apologetic for government corruption: religion did it!

Beijing Daily warns that “feudalistic superstitious activities” lead to corruption. “Superstition is thought pollution and spiritual anesthesia that cannot be underestimated and must be thoroughly purged…As an official, if you spend all your time on crooked ways, sooner or later you’ll come to grief.”

Li Chuncheng, former deputy party honcho in Sichuan, used feng shui (pronounced feng swey) to find the crooked path. Feng shui is a traditional method of divining the good and bad influences of one’s environment. Li used it to guide him in his corrupt career of bribery and abuse of power for which he was jailed for 13 years in 2015.

Security chief Zhou Yongkang, who made all other officials quake in their boots, used occult sources for his power. He was jailed for life for leaking state secrets to qi-gong expert, fortune-teller and healer Cao Yongzheng, known as the “Xinjiang Sage” of far western China. In the 1990s, a People’s Daily article claimed that with a single look at the face he could tell a person’s future and with a single touch could heal incurable illnesses.

Chinese courts say that Cao was also able to pocket several billion dollars in “illegal profits.” He very well might be the highest paid fortune teller in world history. Supposedly, he is in custody of the Chinese government after testifying against the security chief Zhou.

7 In sheer numbers and ferocity, the Chinese government has become the leader of an international atheist movement. Renewed effort to teach and demand atheism.

“Communism begins from the outset with atheism,” said an article this Fall in People’s Daily.

Beijing Daily, the official voice of the government, warned Communist Party officials this Fall not to “pry to god or worship Buddha” because good Communists are atheists.

8 Religion is “soaking into China” from outside influences, claims the government.

In an editorial in the People’s Daily, Wang Zuoan, the head of China’s religious affairs bureau, approved the new rules approved last winter to restrict religion because of “The foreign use of religion to infiltrate [China] intensifies by the day and religious extremist thought is spreading in some areas.”

[constantcontactapi formid=”2″]

8 things you need to know about current oppression of religion by the Chinese government

Eight is perfect harmony in Chinese tradition. If you ascend to live on the 8th Floor, you are especially blessed.

8 things you need to know about current oppression of religion by the Chinese government Eight is perfect harmony in Chinese tradition. If you ascend to live on the 8th Floor, you are especially blessed.

#Bejing Daily #China #People&039;s Daily #personality cult #religious freedom #Tony Carnes #Wang Zuoan #Xi Jinping #Yugan

0 notes

moments777 · 7 years ago

Photo

I thought I was the only one until I read this! I believe that there are many, many out there who can identify with the writer. Very well written! I’m fed up with church. This isn’t coming from an atheist or someone who despises everything related to God. This isn’t coming from a former man of faith who decided to give up on his spirituality. This is coming from a sincere Christian who’s been attending church for most of his life. Yes, you read that correctly: I’m a follower of Jesus who hates going to church. That probably sounds like an oxymoron to some of you. Well, before I continue expounding upon this in much further detail, I want to clarify a few things: Many people who read this blog will be very quick to criticize and judge me for it. I guarantee that some will indeed be very angry and offended at what I’m about to write (even at what’s already been said in the first few sentences), and I may also lose a few friends in the process. This topic isn’t meant to be taken lightly; we’re talking about an area of life that most Christians consider sacred and of utmost importance in their relationship with God. I’ve been accused of being unloving, disrespectful, dishonoring to church leaders, and so many other things simply because I bring up the issues and inconsistencies that I and countless others have PERSONALLY experienced while being at church. Until now, I’ve even screened my content and limited how much I challenge those problems for fear of hurting and offending others. It’s time for me to be honest. I’m done with living in the fear of man, worrying about offending Christians just for sharing my heart. I’m done with watching congregants crumble under the controlling, manipulative hand of religious leadership and not saying anything about it because I don’t want to be “dishonoring” to those in “authority.” I’m done with caring what people think or say about me for fear of rejection. So many people feel the same exact way about these things as I do, but are too afraid to speak up about it. If I can’t be brutally honest with others, how can I be honest with God? And if my friends are willing to disown me and never talk to me again because of something I believe, then were they really my friends to begin with? Was our friendship actually based on love, or just a common ideology? If you can’t handle my honesty and me sharing my experiences, then with all due respect, you don’t have to read my blog. I’m not shutting up anymore. Hate me, call me what you will, but I must stay true to myself and the conviction that God has placed on my heart. My reasons for posting this are not only to challenge certain aspects of what church has become, but also to help bring awareness of the freedom we can have from a system that’s held many of us captive for so long. Please keep in mind that I’m NOT encouraging Christians to stay away from their local churches or trying to convince you that going to church is a bad thing. These experiences and thoughts are MINE, and although many other people have experienced similar occurrences, my words don’t epitomize every single church group that exists in the world. I hope that my intentions will be more clear as you read further along. If you’re still reading this and haven’t completely shut me out by now, thank you for your patience and openness. I’ll now continue forward: Defining the Church: A Building or a Body? What is church? When I say that I hate “church,” I’m not referring to the Body of Christ or any specific group of people. This is where a bunch of readers get mistaken when it comes to my content. They see me talk about church in a negative way and assume that I hate Christians. This can’t be further from the truth; I love people. Jesus loves his children and I believe that I should express that love too. I wouldn’t write the things that I do if I wasn’t trying to HELP people. Also, when I say that I hate “church,” I’m not referring to the gathering of a community of believers in fellowship. Fellowship and community are incredibly important when it comes to our relationship with God and the world. Some of the most precious times in my years being a Christian were during times of discussing, worshiping, and praying with other believers. When I say that I hate “church,” I’m referring to the religious, organized, over-packaged, monotonous, manipulative system/cycle that disguises itself as the true Church. WE are the true Church; the Church is the Body of Christ, the children of God. Should there be community within the Body? Of course! But so many Christians have confused the Body with a building. We’re taught that in order to grow closer to God and to experience his presence, we need to go to a specific location, enter a specific building, sing a few specific songs, sit down and listen quietly to a specific person, and go home just to repeat the same cycle the next week. Is that what the Christian life is about? I was practically born in church. I started attending church with my family even before it was a personal choice of mine. “Going to church” regularly was a part of my life. As far as it becoming a choice, I started choosing to attend weekly services at around the age of twelve. Often times, I would attend more than one service per week. I’m twenty-three years old now, so that would mean I attended 2-3 services a week for over ten years. That’s at least 1,560 church services since I began voluntarily going (and that’s not including the times I went against my will). I don’t write this to brag, because I honestly don’t see that as something to brag about. I’ve done the “good Christian thing.” I’ve gone to the same building to “meet with God.” I’ve sung the same old tired worship songs. I’ve sat down quietly and listened to pastors preach their sermons. I’ve given money that I didn’t have to support all of it. I’ve done this repeatedly for years… and I’m sick of it. I’m bored. I feel like every time I sit in a church or at school chapel, I don’t want to be there. Can anyone relate? I’m tired of doing the same old routines and expecting new results. This is NOT how Jesus described the Church. This is not how it was in the book of Acts or in the lives of the apostles/disciples. They saw power! They built relationships with sinners, drunks, pagans, the outcasts of society and saw miraculous things happen! What’s interesting is that the Bible never commands us to GO to church; it commands us to BE the Church! Jesus commanded believers to go make disciples of ALL nations and to bring the kingdom. He didn’t say to go gather as many Christians who think the same way into a building every Sunday, sing songs about him, listen to one person speak about the Bible, and pay tithes. Please hear that I’m not condemning you if you participate in any of those things. If you find meaning and purpose in them, then by all means keep doing what you’re doing. I even occasionally listen to sermons online every now and then. But for many of us, that just won’t settle anymore. If you’re content with attending weekly services and feel that they’re beneficial to you, then I bless you in your endeavors. However, the point that I’m making here is to say that “going to church” is simply a personal choice and not a requirement for spiritual growth by any means. House of the Lord? One of the main reasons I attended weekly meetings was to experience the presence of God. I believed that because the church building was dedicated to worship, it was a place where the Holy Spirit dwelled. If I wanted to encounter God in a tangible way, I could go to this place and meet him. God was more in that place than he was with me at home, so I had to go there as much as possible. This is a common mindset to many people, especially those in Charismatic circles. The idea that some buildings are more holy than others and that we have to go to a specific location if we want to experience the anointing is not only an Old Covenant way of thinking, but it’s also plain silly. God is everywhere, and his presence is the same everywhere. If he lives in you, then you have as much anointing as any building does. You don’t have to go into a building to experience God; you can experience him wherever you are! One excuse that I’ve heard for making weekly services an obligation is this verse: “Those who are planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God” (Psalm 92:13). The attempt is to prove that the Scriptures support going to church as a means for spiritual growth. But what’s funny about this interpretation is that the “house of the Lord” mentioned in this verse isn’t referring to an American piece of architecture. It’s referring to the ancient Hebrew Tabernacle/temple, where the Holy Spirit resided under the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant, what is the house of the Lord? That’s right: WE are the temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19)! The house of the Lord isn’t a building; our bodies are the houses of the Lord. The Facade of Fellowship “Don’t stop meeting together with other believers, which some people have gotten into the habit of doing” (Hebrews 10:25). This is another reason I always hear to support going to church. But you’ll notice that “don’t stop meeting together with other believers” is very different from “don’t stop attending scheduled meetings every week and sitting under the pastor’s teaching.” Again, I agree that fellowship and community are both necessary and important for Christians to mature and grow, but the manner of how we fellowship shouldn’t have to be micromanaged by any specific religious system. I find that a major problem in many churches is that they claim to be a community and contain fellowship, when in reality, those things are nowhere to be found. We may not like to admit it, but church just isn’t designed for fellowship. The function of churches that I’ve been to my entire life has been as follows: The congregation walks in, starts up short conversation before service begins, sings a few worship songs together, sits down to hear the sermon, and then leaves. In many cases, the members desire to talk with one another after the service is over, but are often ushered out of the building. I’m not sure about you, but his was how my experience was. Is that really “fellowship?” The system of church functions allows for minimal involvement with other Christians during the service. The majority of our time is spent sitting in a pew, looking at the back of someone’s head who we may have swiftly greeted in passing, and then it’s over. We come back the next week and call it “fellowship.” In my experience, the REAL fellowship and community came AFTER the service, when the members would meet up for lunch and talk, or when a small bunch of us went to a home group. You know, actually getting to know each other. Imagine that! How can we get to know each other and claim to have fellowship if all we do is sit and listen to one person speak for an hour and then leave to do it all over again? That’s not fellowship; that’s a classroom. I’m an experiential learner. I personally don’t learn very well through lectures (I never have). School was never my thing, and I always hated sitting in a classroom listening to professors lecture because 1) it was impersonal and boring, and 2) if I don’t get involved somehow through hands-on activity, I tune out and don’t learn anything. I can understand that some people enjoy those types of systems, but people like me can’t learn that way. If I’m not a fan of school lecturing during the week, then why would I want to learn about God that way on weekends? This revelation hit me hard when I participated in a college play earlier this year. I spent hours each day with the cast, not because it was a matter of obligation, but because I got to know them well and enjoyed spending time with them. We became like a family; we had fun together, we talked about God together, and we enjoyed serving each other. And you know what? Not only did I feel a deeper sense of fellowship and community at rehearsals than I did at church, but I learned way more about myself and God in a few months with the cast than I did in years of going to church meetings. Did I learn a lot in church? You bet. Did I also have to UNLEARN a lot that I was taught there? You bet. I enjoy learning and growing through experience. Jesus didn’t only teach; he demonstrated and brought the disciples into a lifestyle they could see and touch. They had hands-on training. Jesus met with them personally and enjoyed spending time with them. The disciples didn’t go to church, they WERE the Church. Ask yourself this question: If real fellowship happens only after the main service during meals or home groups, then why is the actual service necessary for fellowship? What’s it’s purpose? To experience God? We can do that anywhere. To hear a message? We can do that online or even hear from God ourselves if we want to. To see a fiery preacher? That would make church about one person. To sing songs? We can do that with Christians anywhere. To pay tithes? Is money what church is all about? Think about it. Conditional Community In my neighborhood, there’s a small park that has a lot of heritage. But another thing that this park is known for is the people who go there. It’s constantly full of homeless people, drunks, and drug addicts. Those in New York City who have no place to live often sleep in this park. The poverty and hurt there is incredibly tough to look at. The church that I attended for ten years was right across the street from this park. You would think that a place which is supposed to offer hope, love, and comfort to those in need would do something to help these homeless and hurting people, right? The church did nothing. There was no outreach or continued evangelism program that reached out to these people at all. They weren’t even invited to attend services or experience God. They were completely ignored like a piece of litter on the street, while the children of God (representatives of Christ) sat and listened to someone preach prosperity. The church prided itself on doing good around the world and legitimately helped many people in other countries, but didn’t even help those right in front of them. A friend of mine told a story of when he volunteered to give out free invites for the church to people outside. This friend mentioned that he tried giving invites to the homeless people in the neighborhood park, but was then told by someone in leadership: “Don’t give those to them. Those aren’t the kind of people we want.” Are you kidding me? What are the “kind” of people Jesus hung out with and came to save? That’s your sense of community? The people Jesus had fellowship with are the very people the church often rejects. It’s disgusting, and don’t think I’m attacking one church or am saying these things because of animosity against certain leaders. It’s not just one church. These types of situations are happening in churches all over the globe. People call themselves a light in a dark world, the salt of the earth, and the ambassadors of the kingdom, but they’re doing nothing to shape the community around them. I know that I’m not perfect and that I can also do much better in helping those in my neighborhood, but the church needs to wake up and act like Jesus. We can have seven different churches in one town, yet the community isn’t changing. We talk about transforming the world, meanwhile the people in our congregations are complacent and people on the street corners are dying right in front of our eyes! CAN’T YOU SEE THERE’S SOMETHING WRONG HERE? Church has made community conditional: we say that we accept everyone but we really don’t, whether the cause be financial status or even skin color (I’ve seen it). One of the happiest moments of my life was when a friend and I found a drunk man out on the street and brought him to church with us. He smelled horrible, slurred his words, and cussed like a sailor. We didn’t care; we brought him to the meeting and he sat down next to us. Those in the building turned around and gave us funny looks, but this man stayed for the entire duration of the meeting. He finally found someone who accepted him into an environment that usually wasn’t accepting of his “kind.” THAT’S community. That’s the kingdom. Business Church has become more of a business than a place of community and servanthood. The system can’t function unless it receives donations or “tithes” from it’s members. The leadership says the money goes toward missions and organizations in other countries (which is great), but often times the people in the congregations themselves are struggling financially and the churches don’t do anything to help. The goal is to get as many butts in the seats as possible and to fill up as many services as they can. Jesus told us to go OUT and preach the good news to the world, but we’d much rather try and get the world IN to our orderly scheduled meetings. My mother is one of the most hard-working people I know. She’s busted her behind my entire life, trying to make sure her children are taken care of and financially stable, even at the cost of her own expenses. When it comes to her kids, she’s the most giving person I’ve ever encountered, regardless of what she has. But my family has always struggled to pay rent and other expenses at certain times. God has taken care of our needs, but there have been plenty of times growing up when I remember us having little to no money to spend. We’ve had the electricity in our apartment shut off more than once because we couldn’t pay the bills. One week, I opened the refrigerator only to find a jar of applesauce. That’s all we had to eat in the entire apartment. My mother had to humble herself and borrow food from the neighbors just so we could survive the week. I’ve had my fair share of rough times. But we still decided to go to church and give ten percent of what we had because we were promised a “harvest” in return and because it was worship that God desired. Christians are promised a financial blessing if they give money to keep the system running, but they’re left watching as only the leadership receives all of the benefits. I remember watching one time as the leaders of a church decided to appreciate its own staff by buying them all iPhones. They proceeded to give out these gifts to the staff in front of the entire congregation during the service. Meanwhile, there were people sitting in the seats who couldn’t even pay their phone bills that month. I’m not saying that giving and receiving expensive products is bad. I’m all for having nice things. But if churches can’t even take care of their own members, how can they say they’re helping people? The leaders have nice cars, houses, and other things that have been paid by the attenders’ offerings, and the attenders’ are living paycheck-to-paycheck. That’s not right. I’d like to think I’m a giving person. I love doing things for others that they won’t be able to repay me for. When it comes to church attendance, it’s not about the tithes and offerings. I’d much rather give money to a friend who’s struggling to pay rent or one of those homeless people in the park than to give 10% of my income to a place that doesn’t care about them. I’m looking forward to the day when church offerings look like this again: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need” (Acts 2:44-45). “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need” (Acts 4:32-35). This was how money worked in the early church. It wasn’t about making sure a building could stay open or a pastor could get rich; it was about the Body of Christ caring for each other and supporting each other for whatever they had need of. A Hierarchy of Control & Exclusive Leadership “But what about accountability? Who’s your “covering”? I get this a lot. The intent is to say that because I choose not to attend regular weekly meetings, I somehow won’t have accountability or discipleship for my relationship with God. Well for one, Jesus is the head of the Church. The pastor is NOT. Any leader who claims to be the head of any church is lying and is on a power trip seeking to control people. Jesus is the ultimate authority in any group of believers. I can have accountability through friends and family, but most of all, the Spirit of God who lives in me. I can respect authority figures in the Church, but that doesn’t mean I need them breathing down my neck and managing my every move in my walk with God. There are many leaders that I look up to, but God alone is my “covering.” He’s all I need, and he can lead me perfectly fine. One thing I adore about home groups is that although there are clear leaders, no one person is above anyone else. Everyone has an equal opportunity to share revelation that God has given them, or to operate in their spiritual gifts as they see fit. The leaders make sure that this is done in an orderly manner. However, in the church system, you have one person (pastor, bishop, priest, etc.) who gets up in front of everyone and talks for an hour about their interpretation of the Bible. There’s no form of interaction between Christians because they all must sit quietly and listen to one person give THEIR opinion about God. What happens then is this one person has now built a platform in which THEY are the anointed leader, and anyone who challenges or questions them and their views are automatically wrong. The challengers are accused of being “dishonoring” or not “submissive” to authority, even though they’re only sharing their opinions. I have friends who’ve been in ministry for years and are more than qualified to preach and teach others about the Lord, yet pastors refuse to ordain them because they aren’t quite “ready” yet. So when is “ready”? When their theology becomes the same as everyone else? When they’ve been a Christian long enough? When they earn a college degree? Jesus called his disciples and immediately sent them out to minister. How many of the apostles were legally ordained? None. But of course, the “anointed” clergy in the church had the final say. I visited a church in Vermont once, and after the service ended, the pastor stayed at the altar and spoke/prayed with anyone who needed it. I thought to myself, “This pastor actually sticks around for a long time and serves people? How awesome!” I was used to pastors who’d preach their sermons and immediately leave when it was over. They claimed they were “too busy” or that there were just too many people who wanted to pray. This is why I kept my mouth shut for so long. I had so much respect for religious leaders just because they were the ones “in charge” and had superior knowledge of theology, that I never brought up any of the problems I’ve previously mentioned in this blog. I knew that there were issues in the churches I attended, but I was afraid to speak up because I was told to respect my elders and to “submit to authority.” “Touch not the Lord’s anointed,” right? Ha. I’m no longer scared to write about these things because just like getting out of a bad relationship, we always have 20/20 hindsight when we’re finally free. I didn’t want to admit that I felt trapped at the time, but now I feel what so many Christians before me have felt: frustrated. I was the youth leader of a church once. It all ended when I posted a Facebook status sharing my honesty about certain things I believe. I was called “un-Christian” and told that I was causing “disunity,” “confusion,” and “disturbing the peace” of the church. I was told that I “gave up the right” to share my opinions on social media when I joined staff. Talk about control, huh? I then decided to leave because why should anyone want to stay in a position where they were being accused of those things? They couldn’t handle me being part of their leadership just because they disagreed with me on something. Can anyone else relate? The week after I left, an entire sermon was preached on why what I believed and briefly mentioned in that status was heretical. I wasn’t mentioned by name, but the damage was done. I was the heretic, the deceived one, the one preaching a false gospel… All because of one Facebook post. Since then, only one or two people in the whole congregation has even contacted me (none of which were on staff). Not a call, not a text, not an email, or even a Facebook message. This was the place I dedicated my life to for almost ten years. I trusted these people. I practically grew up there, but am now treated like an outcast that never existed. I was quickly replaced by another youth leader as if my time there had meant nothing. I can only pray that everyone there is blessed, regardless of how I was treated. These types of things are happening over and over again in the world. You’d be amazed at some of the stories I’ve heard. It’s not about the people in leadership as much as it’s the legalistic concept of what it means to “do church” and the pride that it brings to those with a ministry platform. Conclusion This is why I write what I do. There are people who love Jesus out there, just like me, who are fed up with church. The religious system of control will continue to keep Christians in slavery if things don’t change. There are many wonderful pastors and leaders in the Body of Christ, and not all of them are the way I described throughout this article. As I said earlier, these are MY experiences that others have similarly gone through. If you “go to church,” you’re not a heathen. Likewise, if you don’t go to church, you’re not a heathen either. I get you, and I completely understand your struggles for true community. I have no problem visiting church meetings and worshiping there, but until I find a place that will accept me regardless of my theology, allow me to get involved without micromanaging me, or actually care enough to stick with me through my honesty and hard times, I won’t commit. Jesus always accepts me. I won’t sit under any ministry that claims to care about people but doesn’t help to change their own community or those in its own circle. If you’re a spiritual leader in any way, I hope you think hard about what’s been written here. While I’m angry about the manipulation that goes on in many areas, I long to see the Church fulfill its purpose: to love and to serve. If you say you want to minister, then do what comes with the job description and serve people. If you’re not a leader, but a person who regularly attends church meetings, I want you also to think about these things. What do you get out of going to church? What SHOULD you be getting out of it? Do you find it easy to be open and honest with your church leaders? Could you challenge and question your leaders, or will that get you into trouble? Is your church about programs and traditions, or about power and world change? Is your church doing more to help itself grow, or is it actually attempting to bring transformation to its community? Get honest with yourself, your mentors, and with God. Many people go to church their whole lives and never change, not because going to a place to worship is awful, but because Church isn’t a place you go to; it’s who you are. God is much bigger than your four walls. ~One Liitle Spark 🙏😎✝️

0 notes